nd warn her
mariners of the shoals of disaster.

There is no ground whatever for the belief which prevails somewhat that
the members of such a court would always follow the contention of their
own country. Even under the present cumbersome and illogical method of
selecting arbitrators we have a recent illustration that men great
enough to fill positions of this kind, realizing the dignity and
responsibility of the position, will rise above the clamor of their own
countrymen and decide the question at issue upon its merits. I refer to
the Alaskan boundary dispute between the United States and Great
Britain. We have also an illustration of this point in our own country.

Our national government is composed of sovereign states. State pride is
an attribute of practically all our citizens. Its influence has
compelled men to honestly do all kinds of unreasonable things. For it
men have given up their property and sacrificed their lives. Yet this
prejudice has never reached our judiciary. Every United States judge is
a citizen of some state. They try cases between different states, pass
on disputes existing between a sovereign state and the citizens of
another state, and settle controversies arising between the citizens of
one state and the citizens of another state. Our judges have been
criticized on nearly all possible grounds, often no doubt without
reason, sometimes perhaps with good cause, but in the entire history of
our country, there has never yet been made the charge that any one of
these judges has been influenced in his official conduct by pride of his
native or adopted state. Man is often unconsciously influenced and
controlled by his associations, his habits and the environments of
earlier life. Their influence has become a part of the man. But the
history of jurisprudence will show that judges have seldom, if ever,
been moved or influenced in official action by the excitement, the
clamor or the prejudice of the citizenship if it was beyond the power of
that citizenship to reward or punish.

It is unnecessary to provide any method for the enforcement of the
decrees of an international court. It is safe to trust to the honor of
the governments interested, and to the enlightened public sentiment of
the civilized world for the honest enforcement in good faith of every
such judgment and decree. This has been frequently demonstrated in the
past. In all the history of the world there has never been an instance
where